‘Humiliating’, ‘farce’ – were only two of the mildest comments in the British press at the adventure-turned-into-a-nightmare for the British SAS commando troop and the ‘diplomat’ (who then turns out to be a mid-ranking M16 officer) who were captured by one single man in a farmhouse outside Benghazi, kept prisoners and returned to Malta. This, however, is not just all. It is the latest in a series of increasingly alarming farces and policy changes by the British government in this present Libya tragedy.

Before this latest episode, David Cameron’s attempt to act big on the international stage and take a lead in tackling the Libya crisis had sown confusion both in Britain about his foreign policy stance and abroad with questions raised whether the UK can afford to back military interventions abroad.

There is nothing at least on the surface to connect Britain with Libya. The two countries are not neighbours. Britain does not get most of its oil from Libya in the way that Italy does. Yet there is mutual attraction not just as regards business but also as regards Libyan (or Gaddafi) investments in key high-quality property sites in London.

And, although Britain has not been as high up in the grovelling stakes as Italy, it was Britain which closed an eye to the outstanding issue of who killed WPC Fletcher from inside the Libyan embassy years ago and an even bigger eye to the people who were killed at Lockerbie and who put pressure on the Scottish local government to release the only man who had been found guilty by an international court for the Lockerbie terrorist attack.

This man, incredibly, is still alive while so many hundreds of Libyan protesters have died before him.

Ever since he became prime minister, Mr Cameron has been condemning Tony Blair’s policies as regards Libya and its dictator. But even so, Britain has become increasingly irrelevant in the world’s global stakes: It has been sidelined in Europe, has been on the margins of G20 financial talks and has made little impact on the foreign policy thinking of Washington. When the Libya crisis emerged, Mr Cameron was away on a trip to the Gulf, leading a trade delegation selling defence contracts at a time when Arab autocrats were firing on their own citizens.

Then Mr Cameron’s coalition government was slow, damnably slow, in helping British nationals escape from Tripoli.

Then, almost suddenly, Mr Cameron became defiant and activist. The new British doctrine which began to emerge had signs showing it had been influenced perhaps by Tony Blair himself or at least by the neocons in the US. Speaking in the House of Commons last Wednesday, Mr Cameron intoned: “It’s the job of leaders of the western world to prepare for all eventualities.” While other governments were being careful and prudent about intervening in the Libya issue, Mr Cameron insisted Britain had the capacity to support a no-fly zone. This was far more hawkish than most of Britain’s allies, including France and Germany, who favoured deploying what they call ‘soft options.’

The irony during all this was that Downing Street was at that very same time confirming 11,000 British military job cuts. The Labour Opposition not unreasonably pointed out there was a chasm between his rhetoric and the reality of budget cuts.

All the while, the military build-up in the seas between Malta and Libya was continuing with the arrival of more US ships from the Gulf and the presence of at least two British ships which have been used in the evacuation of people from Libya.

Then this adventure that was about to end in a tragedy and which ended in a farce.

Apart from this propaganda boost this adventure has given to Gaddafi’s claim that foreign nations were about to intervene in Libya and the shambolic, amateurish way in which it seems to have been carried out, this, for our part, also has an impact on Malta’s foreign policy stance at these dangerous times.

It must be made clear that the British helicopter did not leave from Malta, although it had been in Malta in the previous days. Nor did the other shambolic expedition, that by the Dutch helicopter, begin from Malta.

But it is equally clear that Malta’s name is increasingly featuring in news stories about current preparation for a military role in the conflict. The geographic proximity of Malta to Libya is undoubtedly a factor, but equally the close and clear links between Malta and the UK. British troops could possibly use with more freedom the Akrotiri base in Cyprus since this is a sovereign base, but we have had recordings played of Malta’s control tower exchanging information with AWACS on the identity and destination of the Libyan leader’s private jet.

It is not so much a question to ask where does our constitutional neutrality feature in all this as much as to ask whether this is prudent given Malta’s proximity, and the other various links between Malta and Libya. Again, there was the added question whether Malta should have returned the Libyan planes that were brought here. It was a good move by the Maltese government to remove all the planes’ military potential while the UN sanctions now forbid the returning of the planes.

In short, we must all understand that being so near to our troubled neighbour may bring us worldwide fame as the first safe port for those fleeing from the fighting, but it can also bring us various headaches, problems, troubles and even dangers.

Which is all the more reason for us to become apprehensive when other countries, in this case the UK, suddenly go ballistic.